Monday, March 10, 2014

What is really at stake in Crimea?

By ordering the covert invasion of Crimea, Russian President Putin
created an extremely tense situation not only in Ukraine but also in the
rest of Europe. The official motivation for his actions, i.e. to defend
Russians living in Ukraine, is a sham. There is no evidence of the new
(or any previous) government in Ukraine persecuting Russians or
Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine. Nor is annexing Crimea likely to
be his ultimate objective: Crimea obtains almost all of its fresh water
and electricity from continental Ukraine, many of its people will resist
a return to Russia, so that it will be difficult to integrate Crimea
into Russia. What are the real reasons for Putin’s actions and what is
at stake?

Ukraine

A key factor behind the Russian aggression is that Putin is strongly
determined to make the February revolution in Ukraine a failure. For the
second time in less than ten years, Ukrainians have mobilized to oppose
corrupt and authoritarian governments. There is a strong determination
among a large majority of Ukrainians to live under democratic
institutions of high quality, similar to those in the West. This is the
real spirit of the Maidan and of the February revolution. Dozens gave
their lives for this goal, killed by Ukraine’s ex-president Yanukovych’s
snipers. The revolution succeeded in ousting Yanukovych, a feat which
seemed improbable just a few weeks ago. The success of this revolution
is Putin’s worst nightmare, because such a revolution could extend to
Russia too, where democratic aspirations hide behind the surface of
Putin’s autocratic regime. Putin is therefore determined to do
everything he can to make the young Ukrainian democratic experience a
failure.

Crimea

The invasion of Crimea was a first step, destined to provoke the new
government in Kiev and to create chaos. Fortunately, the new government
has so far responded adequately by denouncing the invasion and not
responding to this gross provocation and violation of Ukraine’s
sovereignty. However, it will become increasingly difficult for the
Ukrainian government to sustain this responsible position, as Russian
sponsored provocateurs continuously attempt to escalate the tension in
Ukraine and as the incredibly Orwellian Russian propaganda pushes for an
increasingly aggressive course of action. A Ukrainian military response
of any kind in Crimea might lead to an invasion in the rest of Ukraine
to put in place an authoritarian administration friendly to Putin.
Clearly, Putin is employing all means to achieve this goal and will not
hesitate instigating the most monstrous acts and provocations to
“justify” a military response.

Russian army in Crimea

Putin’s actions are dangerous and risky, but
the calculation on his part was cold blooded and clear minded. There
were three key elements to his logic. First, an occupation of Crimea and
other parts of Ukraine would be greeted as a liberation from a coup in
Kiev. Second, Europe and the rest of the civilized world would be
divided and unable to present a united front against the aggression.
Western politicians would not risk energy supplies from Russia or ruin
diplomatic relations with Russia over Ukraine. Third, the Russian
propaganda would depict the February revolution as a fascist coup
instigated by the West so as to isolate the new government in Ukraine.

So far, his calculations have not proved
right. Ukrainians are united in their opposition to the invasion. It is
clear to most that the February revolution was not a coup but the result
of a mobilization of the Ukrainian people to establish true democracy
in their country. While the Russian propaganda may have been effective
in the beginning, few outside Russia are falling for Putin’s claims now.
The U.S., Canada, U.K., the rest of Europe and most of the planet’s
governments have expressed their disgust with the invasion.

This strong international reaction may
appear particularly surprising given the paralysis of politicians in
previous crises and the absence of clear Western geopolitical interests
in Ukraine. However, the stakes are incredibly high and a weak response
by the international community could ultimately cost far more than a
part of Ukraine.

In 1994, Ukraine voluntarily gave up the 3rd
largest arsenal of nuclear weapons. No other country has ever given up
nukes. Ukraine’s act of good will was heralded as a major success of
efforts to limit proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world. In
exchange, Russia, the U.S. and the U.K.—and later France and
China—guaranteed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.
Now one of the guarantor countries—Russia—is invading Ukraine and other
guarantor countries appear unable to stop the aggression. In light of
this, how can one credibly guarantee the sovereignty and integrity of
countries protected by non-proliferation and military treaties? How
will other countries under the umbrella of various U.S. security
agreements—such as Japan, South Korea or NATO nations— perceive this
inability of the U.S. to live up to its guarantees? The most likely
response of potentially threatened countries will be to rearm
themselves, thereby potentially starting an arms race. Many
countries—including Ukraine—have the technical capacity to rapidly
develop nuclear weapons, as well as other weapons of mass destruction
and the means to deliver them. A more militarized world, along with
increased uncertainty about the willingness and ability of the U.S. and
its allies to enforce security guarantees, will raise the frequency of
armed regional conflicts, as well as the associated probability of
inadvertent global war. The invasion of Crimea may thus trigger a chain
of events that threaten world peace.

Start of the ICBM R-36M “Dnipro”, a missile that was completely designed and produced on the territory of Ukraine. Source: Wikipedia.

Given Putin’s goal of destabilizing the
new government in Ukraine, the best one can do to counter the Russian
strategy is to help make the Ukrainian revolution a success. This
implies several policy steps. First, one must help the new government
and the reform process in Ukraine. Economic aid and technical expertise
to help Ukraine reform its governance and find the road to macroeconomic
equilibrium and a solid growth path are more important than ever, after
the invasion of Crimea. Signing the association agreement with the EU
as soon as possible is another critical step in this direction. A
constitutional change to achieve political and economic decentralization
has become urgent and would strongly improve governance of the country.
An initiative in this sense started by 2007 economics Nobel prize Roger
Myerson, is crucial here.

Second, the international community should
use all means to stop the Russian aggression. The experience of Iran
shows that diplomatic and economic sanctions can go a long way in making
the aggression costly to the Russian government. Making these sanctions
effective requires united efforts of the international community. While
a military action should clearly be an act of last resort, a credible
commitment to support the Ukrainian government in case of military
confrontation inside Ukraine may in fact deescalate the conflict. This
is the essence of NATO’s success in preventing aggression against its
member countries.

Third, it is important to debunk the
Orwellian lies coming from Russia on the real situation in Ukraine.
Pro-Russian forces have organized a vast propaganda campaign across the
globe to repeat everywhere the Russian narrative of a West-orchestrated
coup in Ukraine. This needs to be resolutely countered by getting the
facts straight and exposing the lies.

Despite the explosiveness of the current
situation, the invasion is likely to backfire for Putin and to
consolidate the reform process in Ukraine. Given the Russian threat,
Ukrainians understand clearly the need for fairly distributed sacrifices
to improve the economy. They also understand that the strongest unity
behind the new government is literally vital. The Russian invasion of
Crimea makes Ukrainians even more determined to establish a successful
democracy in their country. As for Putin, if he is unsuccessful in
making the Ukrainian revolution fail, he may face a stronger protest
movement in Russia than that of 2011-2013 and ultimately share the
destiny of Yanukovych.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Translate

About Me

VoxUkraine is a portal set up to discuss developments in Ukraine. VoxUkraine aims to promote research-based policy analysis and commentary by leading scholars, policymakers and businessmen. The intended audience is people in governments, international organizations, academia and the private sector as well as journalists specializing in economics, politics, and business.
Professionals who are interested in writing a “research-based analysis and commentary” should send a few lines describing the possible column and its research basis to: voxukraine@gmail.com. The submission should include information on the author(s) current and past affiliation(s), academic degrees or experience, and the URL of the author(s)’ current webpage.
The VoxUkraine Editorial Board will decide which submissions are accepted. The members of the Board are:
Olena Bilan (Dragon Capital); Volodymyr Bilotkach (Newcastle U.);
Yuriy Gorodnichenko (UC Berkeley); Veronika Movchan (IER);
Tymofiy Mylovanov (U. of Pittsburgh); Dmytro Sologub (Raiffeisen Bank Aval);
Oleksandr Talavera (U. of Sheffield).